Pages

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Answer Genesis/Revelations of the Defendants

Are the Answers In?

As we move along in
civil action 08cv02407 (NLH) (KMW) within the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, we now come to the shocking answers offered by the
defendants in the case.Keep one thing
in mind as we proceed, that being the fact that these are the revelations of
the defendants attorney's, as evidenced by said answers not being directly
signed by a named party.

Tell you what, lets
take a look at what the law says in reference to answering a complaint
first.We would have to begin with FRCVP
7 Pleadings Allowed: Form of Motions and Other Papers.In doing so, we find that FRCVP 7 (a) holds:
"Pleadings- Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint; (2) an
answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a
counterclaim; (4) an answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6)
and answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply
to an answer.

Pursuant to FRCVP 7
(a) (1), stating that one of the allowed pleadings is a complaint.The court's record evidenced by copy of its
docket sheet substantiates that this rule was complied with and met by me when
I filed a complaint on 5/15/2008.This
document became Court docket item #1. (See page 8 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source
Links" to the right).

Pursuant to FRCVP 7
(a) (2), stating that one of the allowed pleadings is an answer to a complaint,
Harrah's Hotel and Casino did file it's answers to the complaint. This document
filed on 10/14/2008 became court docket item #7.(See page 8 @
Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

On 11/18/2008, after
receiving the above answers from Harrah's, I did timely file my Reply and
Objection to the sufficiency of Defendants Answers. Said fact is evidenced by
the court's docket sheet containing docket item #9.(See page 9 @
Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

Appears, wait a
minute, I dislike that word. Why?In my
opinion when a judge uses that word be prepared to duck, because the J.S.H.I.T
is about to hit the fan.Any judge
sitting on the bench now a days will be old enough to remember the song that
went, "Is you is or is you ain't my baby."The singer of that song, way back when,
didn't ask are you appearing to be my baby?He wanted to know cut and dry-- either you is or you ain't. Now a days we say
"don't front."

So the record shows
that I filed a complaint and Harrah's Hotel and Casino answered.But wait what about the other defendant?Those of you versed in the law
asked this question awhile back I hope, and those not as well versed should be catching on by
now.Do I have to break out the
ruler?That's right, one defendant has
answered to this point and according to the documentary proof before us on the
courts docket sheet we are about to go to an initial conference.

The above referenced
initial conference is the result of an Order by Magistrate Judge Joel
Schneider, entered on the courts docket as docket item #8 on 10/17/2008. But if
I may keep you a little longer, please note that docket item #10 reveals that
defendant George Morton was served and his answers to the complaint are due in
the court by 12/15/2008.Oh Goodie.Not! Are you forgetting that Mr. Morton did
come to the conference on 12/17/2008.

We already
established that because Mr. Morton did submit to the courts jurisdiction the
cohorts had to resort to removing docket item #11 which was Judge Schneider's
Order evidencing this fact. (See J.S.H.I.T.#2 in
archives to the left) There are some key issue to reveal to you as to
what took place at the initial conference, and I will do that in the next
posting.